contradicts one of your favourite assertions, that the term church, in scripture, is never applied but to a single congregation, who could meet conveniently in the same place. Besides, when we examine the History of the Acts, we see that, in addition to the particular office-bearers who superintended these congregations, they had a general court, composed of the apostles and elders of the whole, who seem constantly to have administered their general concerns, as well as, perhaps, reviewed the decisions of subordinate courts. This court ordained the deacons, (Acts vi); received and distributed the contributions, (Acts xi. 30), which were sent, for the assistance of the poor at Jerusalem, by the brethren at Antioch; and decided, (Acts xv), upon a reference which was made to them from the church at Antioch. And indeed, if they determined in an authoritative manner as to a reference which was made to them by another church at so great a distance, we may well believe that while they governed separately their different congregations in the city of Jerusalem, they met likewise occasionally as a general council, to judge in any appeals or references which were presented from these particular congregations. Again, are we not told, Acts xxi. 18, that when the apostle Paul had arrived at Jerusalem, he went in unto James; and all the elders were present? And does not this assembly of elders not only suggest to Paul the manner in which he should act on a particular occasion, but affirm, that they had formerly concluded, or determined, (xengine), respecting the power of the ceremonial law? But does not this insinuate that there were meetings, not only of the elders of each of the congregations to regulate the affairs of these particular congregations, but meetings also of the elders of the different congregations in that city, in a judicial capacity, to decide in matters of more general importance? And if they met in common with ministers from Antioch, to decide in an appeal which was made to them by that church, much more would they meet with the ministers of any particular congregation in Jerusalem, to determine as to any appeal which might be made to them from that church. When we reflect them upon these facts, which have been attempted to be provedthat there was a number of congregations in the city of Jerusalem, each of which had its respective pastors, and its particular place for stated convention-and that, though thus distinct, and possessing their different elders and overseers,

they were yet so connected, in point of government, as to constitute only one church-and when we see the elders of these congregations assembling together in one common court, for deciding upon appeals from distant congregations-is it not obvious that the scheme of Independency, which asserts that there is not a higher court under heaven than the eldership or rulers of a particular congregation, and that one congregation, with its overseers, cannot be subjected to the review of the elders of a greater number of congregations, is completely repugnant to the pattern which is left us in this primitive church, and the explicit testimony of the word of God?

Is it affirmed, as usual, that these assertions, as to the number of congregations in Jerusalem, cannot be just, because, as has been now remarked, they are represented in scripture but as one church, whereas, had there been different congregations, they would have been expressly pointed out as different churches? It is replied, that we are sufficiently instructed, by the number of believers who resided in Jerusalem, by the variety of their ministers, and the diversity of languages, that there must have been a number of congregations in that city. To allege therefore, notwithstanding, that they must have been but one congregation, because they are described in scripture as but one church, would be no less unfair and inconsistent than to affirm, that, because all the various believers in the world are also denominated one church, (Matth. xvi. 18), and one flock, (John x. 16. 1 Peter v. 3, &c.), there is but one congregation in the world.

The whole nation of Israel moreover, as has been remarked, when it included almost two millions of persons, is pointed out to us but as one church, (Acts vii. 38), and we never hear that at any period, during the ancient dispensation, they comprehended more churches. But yet we know that even from the earliest times, when they met, to be taught by the priests and the Levites, it must have been in a number of distinct and separate congregations; and, agreeably to this, we are informed, (Psal. Ixxiv), of many synagogues which had been built for this purpose in the land of Judea. Why then might not the believers in Jerusalem, and why may not the believers in any city or country, though meeting in various and separate societies, be pointed out likewise as but one church?

Is it asserted, as was done by the ancient Independents, that though it could be proved that there was a number of congregations in Jerusalem, and that these congregations were governed by a common court consisting of the apostles, who were entitled to superintend all the churches in the world, no argument can be adduced from it, for the right of ordinary inferior ministers, from various congregations, to assemble as a Presbytery, and review the decisions of the elders or rulers of a particular congregation? It is replied, that the apostles are pointed out in scripture not only as extraordinary ministers, but in the ordinary character of elders or rulers: 1 Peter v. 1. To affirm therefore with Independ ents, that it was an extraordinary act, because it was done by apostles, is to beg the question; nay, if the same principle were applied to their conduct in other instances, it would be attended with consequences the most destructive to Independency. Upon the same grounds it would follow, that since the apostles are said to have preached, to have dispensed the sacraments, and to have ordained deacons, these acts were extraordinary, and ought not now to be performed by ordinary ministers, whether Independent or Presbyterian. But if the mere circumstance of its being related in scripture, that the apostles met as a court of review, and superintended the affairs of all the churches in Jerusalem, will not demonstrate that their conduct, in this instance, is to be viewed as extraordinary, it becomes necessary to ascertain by other considerations whether it was so. And when we attend to these considerations, we find reason to conclude that it was not extraordinary, for both the nature of the thing, and the admission of ordinary teaching elders to sit with them in this court and to exercise along with them the same authority, clearly point out to us an opposite deduction. The last of these privileges could never have been granted to them, had the conduct of the apostles in this instance been extraordinary, and consequently not intended to be imitated at present by ordinary ministers. Ordinary ministers were certainly then as little entitled, had this been an extraordinary power, to claim a share of it, as ordinary ministers in the present day. Nor were they allowed merely to express their acquiescence in what was said or determined by the apostles (as Silvanus and others, whose names are recorded in the Apostolic Epistles, were), but they possessed an equality of power; for the decisions which were delivered in this eccle

siastical court are called expressly, "the decrees of the el"ders," as well as of the apostles. It is obvious then, that the apostles did not act in these courts of review as extraordinary ministers; and, by admitting into that council, which governed the affairs of all the congregations in Jerusalem, ordinary office-bearers, we are warranted to say, that the ordinary elders of a number of congregations are now entitled to meet as a Presbytery, and examine the decisions of any particular eldership, or determine in matters which relate to the interests of all these congregations.

Or, is it objected, as is done by Glass, that it cannot be proved that there were stated elders in each of the congregations in the city of Jerusalem who governed these cóngregations, and who, when united as a court, regulated the affairs which respected them all? It is a sufficient answer, that it cannot be proved that there was not in each of them a fixed and stated eldership who superintended it; and it is most probable, from the constitution of other congregations, as well as from what is elsewhere said of Paul and Barnabas, (Acts xiv. 23," that they ordained elders in every church,” or, as Independents would explain it, in every congregation), that there were such office-bearers. At any rate, and this is the point at present in debate, it seems evident that each of these congregations was not independent of the controul of the overseers of others in point of government, but that there was a court corresponding to what we should denominate a Presbytery, composed of the elders of the different congregations, who exercised an authoritative power over each, as well as decided in matters of general importance. The former, though probable from every thing that is said of a Christian congregation in the New Testament, is a point of inferior magnitude only, and, in some circumstances, has been determined, as to other churches, by convenience and utility. The latter is a point of higher moment, and, though completely opposite to the principles of Independents, appears to be established from the circumstances which have been specified. In some of the foreign Presbyterian churches moreover, where the people are neither allowed to judge nor to vote, there are no private Sessions in particular congregations, but the elders or rulers of a number of congregations, associated as a Presbytery, superintend the affairs of each of these congregations, and determine in matters which concern the whole. Even then, if we suppose that the church at

U

Jerusalem was constituted upon the last of these plans, it is plain that every congregation which belonged to it, was not, in point of government, independent of the authoritative superintendence of the ministers of the rest. And if we admit that it was formed like all other churches in the New Testament, and that each of its congregations had its separate office-bearers who governed it, and that these again were connected in a general court, with the office-bearers of the rest, who decided in matters of common concern, the same conclusion follows. These congregations in Jerusalem, even in the days of the apostles, were not independent of each other with regard to government, and therefore congregations ought certainly not to be independent in the present day.

46

Finally, it is affirmed, with Lockier and others, that the sphere of ruling and of teaching should be equal, because the Thessalonians are commanded "to know them who were over them in the Lord, and who laboured or preached 66 among them?" 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. It is answered, that though they be enjoined there to know those who laboured among them in word and doctrine, and were over them in the Lord, it will not follow from this, that none were to be over them in the Lord, unless they thus statedly laboured amongst them. Though the former class of rulers were entitled to their respect, it can never be inferred that a separate order, who were to govern but not to preach to them, were not entitled also to their dutiful regards. If this injunction does not prevent, even among Independents, those who do not statedly labour, from occasionally preaching to them, or dispensing the sacrament, why should it prevent those who do not statedly labour among them, from occasionally meeting to oversee and superintend them, as well as to determine in matters of general concern? To assert, in fine, that because, in the passage before us, Christians are called to honour those who not only ruled but taught among them, there can be no other rulers who can meet, from the elderships of other congregations, for deliberation, is to take for granted the thing to be proved It is as if an inhabitant of Glasgow should say, Because I am commanded by the Constitution to honour the Magistrates under whose superintendence I live, there can be no other part of the Constitution which enjoins me to be subject to a Sheriff, because he does not dwell amongst us—or to the Lords of Session, be